Twenty states and the District of Columbia are suing the federal government over regulatory changes that would weaken protections for endangered and threatened species.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement that the administration’s rule changes weaken protections for the habitats of endangered species, establish an unlawful process to exclude areas from protections, and reduce protections for animals and plants that are newly listed as threatened. The states contend that the rules violate the Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Environmental Policy Act, and Administrative Procedure Act.
“For over half a century, the ESA has stood as a bipartisan example of what it means to protect an irreplaceable part of our planet, but these new rules attempt to destroy longstanding and integral regulatory protections and open the door to further species decline and possible extinctions,” Bonta said.
The US Department of the Interior said while announcing the rule changes that it was reducing federal government overreach and regulatory burdens that hampered development.
The Department announced in July that it was rescinding a definition of “harm” that made it illegal to damage or destroy the habitat of endangered species. It said that the change would align regulations with the original intent of the ESA and reduce federal government overreach that hampered agricultural and fishing industries.
New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement that habitat loss is one of the greatest threats to endangered species, and the rule change conflicts with both the ESA and US Supreme Court precedent on the legal definition of harm. Bonta said that the “harm” rule had protected against damage to species breeding and feeding grounds, pollution or draining of critical water sources, and degradation of habitats.
The Department said later in July that it was enacting new rules that would let the government narrow which areas are considered to be critical habitat for endangered species. Areas could be excluded from that designation if it would not cause extinction.
In addition, the Department simultaneously announced that it was reducing protections for animal and plant species that are newly identified as threatened. It said that threatened species had been given the same protections as endangered species, and the FWS may develop species-specific rules on the protections for each threatened species.
Bonta said that the administration’s habitat exclusion rule would allow or require that the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) exclude areas from critical habitat designations due to economic impact and regulatory burdens, among other factors, limiting the agency’s ability to protect species. As for the reduced protections for threatened species, Bonta said that the new rule provides no timeframe for establishing those species-specific regulations and it requires that the FWS consider the economic effects of those rules.
California and New York are joined in the lawsuits by attorneys general from Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.
Treelines 